DOCSLIB.ORG

Apollo 16 (Descartes) Landing Site Road Log

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Apollo 16 (Descartes) Landing Site Road Log UNITED STATES - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LIBRARY LUNAR _JEXAS 77058 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards and nomenclature. Prepared by the Geological Survey for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration INTERAGENCY REPORT: ASTROGEOLOGY 46 APOLLO 16 (DESCARTES) LANDING SITE ROAD LOG by E. L. Boudette, J. P. Schafer, and D. P. Elston April 1972 This report concerns work done on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Manned Spacecraft Genter, Houston, Texas NASA Contract T-5874-A CONTENTS page EVA I. 1 EVA II 4 EVA III 12 iii APOLLO 16 (DESCARTES) LANDING SITE ROAD LOG l/ 2/ by E. L. Baudette, J. P. Schafer, and D. P. Elston EVA I 0.0 KM Leave ALSEP area on azimuth 280°; distance to Station 1 is Drive over undulating terrain of irregular unit of the Cayley Formation with degraded craters up to about 50 m across. 0.3 Cross northeast-trending filigree (possible layering) shown by low, sinuous escarpment. 0.8 Area of Station 2, North Rim of Spook (degraded crater) Convex escarpment about 5 m high facing southeast, which may require slight detour to north. Boulders ~s m l/This road log is intended for use with the following materials: (a) U. S. Geological Survey, 1972, Apollo 16 (Descartes) Sur- face Data Package (1:12,500 and 1:25,000-scale maps): [unpublished]. (b) Baudette, E. L., Schafer, J. P., and Elston, D. P., 1972, Engineering geology of the Apollo 16 (Descartes) traverse area (1~12,500-scale): U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Map, April 1972. (c) Elston, D.P., Baudette, E. L., and Schafer, J.P., 1972, Geologic map of the Apollo 16 (Descartes) landing site area (1:25,000-scalef. u.s. Geol. Survey Open File Map, April 1972. ~/Station tasks and procedures are not given. See other sources such as cuff check lists and traverse planning kits. 1 across appear to northwest in direction of Buster and possibly athwart path. Layering (bench and step topogra- phy) or colluvial features may be present in Spooke 0.9 Leave area of Station 2 on azimuth ~270° Small (~30 m), sharp secondary craters about 100 m ahead and to the southwest. Buster Crater is within a block field ~l50 m to northwest. A convex escarpment trending to northeast, east of Halfway Crater, may provide a bedrock sampling target. 1.3 West of Halfway Crater Ma.jor escarpment and crease with up to 20 m of relief lies athwart traverse and may require detour to the south. Traverse here is over undulating, cratered, locally block- covered terrain. Largest blocks are associated with 30- 40 m secondary craters. 1.5 Station 1 (east rim of Flag) Plum Crater is to southwest on edge of Flag's rim and continuous ejecta blanket, about 40 m across at this point. Boulders in the area are probably a mixed suite contributed from North Ray and South Ray Craters, and perhaps local sources. Layering and colluvial features are possible in Flag Crater. Ray material (light albedo) from South Ray is abundant east and west of Flag. Return by same route to Station 2, then to Station 3 which is 50 m west of LM site. 2 2.9 Station 3 Regolith here appears to be darker, representing different underlying unit than in areas of Flag and Spook craters. Area is comparatively free from South Ray contri- bution that was seen to west. An albedo contrast appears to mark the contact. 3 EVA II 0.0 KM Leave LM Site on azimuth ~173°; distance to Station 4 is 4.4 km Route south to Survey Ridge is over rolling irregular terrain. Pronounced ray material is nearly absent over the route, which has low albedo. The northern two-thirds of this traverse leg is lightly cratered; the southern third is among several 20-40 m craters both sharp and degraded. Mounds that occur northeast of Phantom Crater may be vol- canic constructional features. Filigree,shown by albedo stripes on the crest of Survey Ridge, is interpreted to be primary layering in volcanic rocks. Outcrops may be found in areas where the filigree is well-developed. The immediate approach to Survey Ridge is over a bright patch of regolith believed to be strewn by a block swarm from South Ray. Abundant relatively small blocks, and possibly an ejecta mantle, occur near the crest of the ridg~. 1.3 Traverse crest of Survey Ridge on azimuth 227° Blocks of varied lithologic types may occur along the ridge crest which is mantled by light regolith. Northeast- trending convex scarps facing southeast bound the ridge. The slope of Stone Mountain to the south appears to be held up by two major stratigraphic units comprised of probable lava flows. The major units are recognized on the basis of topographic benches, albedo, and surface morphology. The 4 lower unit is light medium gray with a relatively smooth surface, and the upper unit is dark medium gray and rougher appearing. The best development of filigree occurs to the southeast of Stone Mountain, associated with lobate scarps. This filigree may reflect primary layering. 1.7 Leave Survey Ridge on azimuth ~168° The traverse from the ridge for a distance of about 1.4 km is over a lightly cratered terrain characterized by patches of high albedo dispersed over a regolith of low background albedo. These patcheq are probably produced by the same process which affected the ridge crest, therefore blocks from South Ray are probably abundant. The latter one-third of this traverse leg in the direction of the major morphologic boundary at the base of Stone Mountain is over rather dark regolith. Some large blocks are associated with small 25-35 m craters. The approach to Stone Mountain is over a transitional unit (Idd ) between rocks of the 0 Cayley Formation (lei) and materials of the Descartes Mountains. Albedo contrasts and low scarps or subtle topo- graphic breaks may be apparent on the ground which define the contact. Filigree occurs ahead and to the southeast, with possible associated outcrops. 2.7 Turn right to azimuth 191° Route is between two rather fresh, probable secondary craters; blocks are resolvable within or on their rims. 5 The regolith appears dark. A convex escarpment or change in albedo of regolith about 70 m south of the southern cra- ter indicates a possible change in subsurface materials. South of the contact, filigree is common. The following hypotheses to explain the origin of filigree seen on the photographs need to be evaluated: 1. An optical or photographic phenomenon. 2. Colluvial (regolith) flow patterns. 3. Relief resulting from near-surface layered bedrock forming benches draped by regolith. Outcrops should occur locally. 4. Some combination of the above. Station 6 bypass; turn left to azimuth 161° Slope on Stone Mountain increases up to about 10° ne&r the contact between Idd and Idd , where regolith becomes 0 1 darker and is sparsely cratered. The thickest regolith may occur at the base of the mountain, related to mass wastage on the slopes above. A relatively rapid destruction of small craters by colluvial transport may occur here, 3.5 Station 5 bypass; turn right to azimuth 176° Traverse is along the base of the upper and most pro= minent Stone Mountqin bench held up by unit Idd • A dis- 2 tinct albedo contrast between the principal units may be visible on the ground here. Outcrops may occur on the steep pitch. A view west into Stubby occurs at end of traverse leg. 6 3.9 200 m west of Cinco Craters; turn left to azimuth 132° The slopes increases to ~12°-15° where trafficability may become fairly difficult. The surface becomes smoother after ~zoo m, although crater density, block density, and block size increase. Regolith thickness may decrease up- ward on slope. The filigree here may or may not compare to that on lower slopes. 4.4 Station 4 (Cinco Craters d and e); depart on azimuth ~331° A west to north panorama of Descartes landing site area may be seen from here. This area provides the only opportunity to see simultaneously into several craters in the southern part of the landing area. The walls of South Ray, Baby Ray, Stubby, and Wreck are of particular interest. Large scale geomorphic features of Smoky Mountain can be observed from here also. Boulders about 10-20 m across, probably from South Ray, occur about 50 m to south on the rim of Cinco e. Cinco d and e craters appear to penetrate the regolith, believed to be thin, and should provide an oppor- tunity to sample locally derived Descartes materials. The return to Station 5 is scheduled to cross terrain east of Cinco a, b, and c. The appearance of filigree, blocks, and albedo contrasts may be enhanced in different sun angle, and regolith thickness may be easier to estimate. 5.2 Station 5; depart on azimuth 341° Observations made near Station 5 on bypass traverse 7 leg may be helpful in explaining the prominent step and bench topography here. Station 5 appears to be just above the base of a regional sub-unit of the Descartes (Idd ). 2 The lithologic contrasts between the sub-units of the Descartes materials (Idd and Idd ), as well as with the 2 1 Cayley Formation at the base of Stone Mountain,may be dis- tinctive and thus reflected in the regolith. Retrace traverse bypass leg to Station 6. 5.6 Station 6; depart on azimuth ~239° Station 6 is near the contact between Idd and the 1 transitional unit, Idd • The route to Station 7 approaches 0 the rim of Stubby Crater over sparsely cratered terrain with irregular ejecta from South Ray and regolith strewn by block swarm debris.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Moon with Apollo 16. a Guidebook to the Descartes Region. INSTITUTION National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 062 148 SE 013 594 AUTHOR Simmons, Gene TITLE On the Moon with Apollo 16. A Guidebook to the Descartes Region. INSTITUTION National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO NASA-EP-95 PUB DATE Apr 72 NOTE 92p. AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402 (Stock Number 3300-0421, $1.00) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS *Aerospace Technology; Astronomy; *Lunar Research; Resource Materials; Scientific Research; *Space Sciences IDENTIFIERS NASA ABSTRACT The Apollo 16 guidebook describes and illustrates (with artist concepts) the physical appearance of the lunar region visited. Maps show the planned traverses (trips on the lunar surface via Lunar Rover); the plans for scientific experiments are described in depth; and timelines for all activities are included. A section on uThe Crewn is illustrated with photos showing training and preparatory activities. (Aathor/PR) ON THE MOON WITH APOLLO 16 A Guidebook to the Descartes Region U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG- grIl INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN- IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- CATION POSITION on POLICY. JAI -0110 44 . UP. 16/11.4LI NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION April 1972 EP-95 kr) ON THE MOON WITH APOLLO 16 A Guidebook to the Descartes Region by Gene Simmons A * 40. 7 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION April 1972 2 Gene Simmons was Chief Scientist of the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston for two years and isnow Professor of Geophysics at the Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles M. Duke, Jr
    ORAL HISTORY TRANSCRIPT CHARLES M. DUKE, JR. INTERVIEWED BY DOUG WARD HOUSTON, TEXAS – 12 MARCH 1999 VOICE OFF CAMERA: And we’re recording. WARD: Well this is our oral history interview with Charles Duke, Apollo astronaut. The date is March 12, 1999. And, Charlie, one of the things that struck me in going back over some of the information on your career was the number of you guys who came into the Astronaut corps from Eagle Scout backgrounds. I think I counted—at last count there were 293 current and former astronauts. Forty of you had been Eagle Scouts, including you. Is that a cause-and-effect sort of a relationship? Or do you think it’s just that people who excel in one thing tend to excel in all of them? DUKE: I think there’s probably some connection, Doug. It might be slight. Some connection. I learned in Scouts responsibility, dedication, perseverance, goal-setting, patriotism, all of those things, I think, that led me to a career in the military. And from that background in the military, then, I was starting my military career and the space program was getting started, all of those attributes and characteristics that had been foundational in my life through the Scouts, I think, certainly helped me in my military career and then focused me in the right direction for the space program. I was in flying school in 1957, and I’d just soloed in October when they launched the Sputnik. And, you know, beginning of the space age. And 4 years later, of course, [Yuri A.] Gagarin and then [Alan B.] Shepard [Jr.] went up, and I was still a lieutenant in Germany in a fighter squadron, and began to dream at that point about, you know, “Maybe this career I’m on, if I set the right goals, I could be an astronaut one day.” And so that’s what happened.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Objectives for Geological Exploration of the Apollo 16 Landing
    Papike, J.J. and Merrill, R.B., eds. Proc. Conf. Lunar Highlands Crust (1980), p. 1-49 Printed in the United States of America 1980luhc.conf....1M Mission objectives for geological exploration of the Apollo 16 landing site1 W. R. Muehlberger The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 Friedrich Horz Geology Branch, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058 J. R. Sevier Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas 77058 G. E. Ulrich U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Summary-This document is a committee report which outlines scientific objectives and specific rationales developed for the exploration of the Apollo 16 site, our most important mission to the lunar highlands. Although premission hypotheses erroneously favored a volcanic origin for the Cayley plains as well as Descartes Mountains, the major mission objectives were successfully accomplished: to delineate the nature and origin of two major physiographic units of the lunar central highlands. The units are composed of fragmental impact deposits; present debate focuses on specific source areas of the samples and depositional mechanism(s). The premission exploration strategy was to use impact craters of various diameters and associated depths of penetration as stratigraphic probes. Specific sampling procedures, operational constraints, and suites of samples that were collected for specific local objectives, are described for lunar scientists who are unfamiliar with mission planning in general and more specifically with Apollo 16. A large number of samples taken to reconstruct local stratigraphic-structural relationships are either insuffi- ciently studied or have not been studied at all. While such stratigraphic-structural relationships are extremely complex, or even chaotic, at Apollo 16, additional insight into local geologic processes could be obtained by future investigation of these special sample suites.
    [Show full text]
  • 04-16-1972 Apollo 16.Indd
    This Day in History… April 16, 1972 Apollo 16 Launches Apollo 16 launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 12:54 p.m. on April 16, 1972. It was the 10th crewed Apollo mission and the fifth (out of six total) to land on the Moon. The mission had three main goals – to study and collect samples from the Descartes region, set up surface experiments, and perform in-flight experiments and photographic work while in lunar orbit. NASA selected the Descartes landing site because they believed it may have been the sight of ancient volcanoes. It would also allow them to collect older lunar material than was collected during Apollo 16 was the fifth manned previous missions. The Apollo 16 crew consisted of John W. Young, mission to land on the Moon. Thomas K. Mattingly II, and Charles M. Duke Jr. After liftoff, the lunar module encountered two problems that ultimately delayed its landing on the moon and cut the mission short by one day. The lunar module touched down on the moon at about 9:24 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20. Young and Duke landed about 905 feet northwest of the intended spot. The two remained on the surface for the next 71 hours. During that time, they conducted three EVAs (extra-vehicular activity), for a total of 20 hours, 14 minutes. During their first EVA they set up the Lunar Roving Vehicle and Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP). They then took the rover to Flag Crater to take samples and photographs. On the return drive, they stopped at Spook Crater and took measurements with the lunar portable magnetometer.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo 16 Press
    .. Arii . cLyI( ’ JOHN F . KENNEDY Si ACE GENTEb @@C€ i!AM LIB XRY cJ- / NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington, D . C . 20546 202-755-8370 I FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY A .M . RELEASE NO: 12-64X April 6. 1972 PRO IFCT. APOLLO 16 (To be launched no earlier than April 16) E GENERAL RELEASE ..................... .1-5 COUNTDOWN ........................ 6-10 Launch Windows ................... .9 Ground Elapsed Time Update ............. .10 LAUNCH AND MISSION PROFILE ............... 11-39 Launch Events .................... 15-16 Mission Events .............. ..... 19-24 EVA Mission Events ................. 29-39 APOLLO 16 MISSION OBJECTIVES .............. 40-41 SCIENTIFIC RESULTS OF APOLLO 11, 12. 14 AND 15 MISSIONS . 42-44 APOLLO 16 LANDING SITE ................. 45-47 LUNAR SURFACE SCIENCE .................. 48-85 Passive Seismic Experiment ............. 48-52 ALSEP to Impact Distance Table ...... ..... 52-55 Lunar Surface Magnetometer ............. 55-58 Magnetic Lunar sample Returned to the Moon ..... .59 K Lunar Heat Flow Experiment ............. 60-65 ALSEP Central Station ................ .65 SNAP-27 .. Power Source for ALSEP .......... 66-67 Soil Mechanics ................... .68 I Lunar Portable Magnetometer ............. 68-71 Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectroscope ......... 71-73 Solar Wind Composition Experiment .......... .73 Cosmic Ray Detector ................. .74 T Lunar Geology Investigation........ ..... 75-78 Apollo Lunar Geology Hand Tools ........... 79-85 LUNAR ORBITAL SCIENCE ............. ...... 86-98 Gamma-Ray
    [Show full text]
  • C. Apollo 16 Traverse Planning and Field Procedures
    C. APOLLO 16 TRAVERSE PLANNING AND FIELD PROCEDURES CONTENTS Page Geologic objectives 10 Preparation for field geology at Descartes 12 Traverse design 14 The mission 18 Hindsight 20 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Composite photograph of near side of the Moon showing the Apollo landing sites 10 2.Photograph showing Apollo 16 landing site and regional lunar features 11 3.Photographs illustrating sampling equipment and techniques used on Apollo 16 13 4.Diagram showing premission traverses and geologic objectives 17 5.Photograph showing locations of actual Apollo 16 traverses 19 GEOLOGIC OBJECTIVES yet been sampled in the Apollo reconnaissance of the The geologic objectives of the Apollo 16 mission were Moon. to understand better the nature and development of Ray materials from two small but conspicuous the highland area north of the crater Descartes, includ- Copemican craters, North Ray and South Ray, both on ing an area of Cayley plains and the adjacent Descartes the Cayley plains, mantle a considerable part of the mountains, and to study processes that have modified traverse area, on both plains and adjacent mountains highland surfaces. The objectives were to be met through the study of the geologic features both on the surface and from orbit and through analyses of the samples returned. The plans for the mission finally evolved from back- room discussions and formal review between interested personnel: scientists, engineers, and, foremost, the as- tronauts themselves. The premission plan as finalized shortly before launch underwent modification during the mission as the science support team evaluated re- vised times available for traverses, problems that arose during the mission, and changing geologic concepts of E the area being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Space Race Documented Through Front Pages of Newspapers from Around North America
    The News Frontier The Space Race documented through front pages of newspapers from around North America Newspapers and patches generously donated to the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center by Jerrid Kenney After the end of World War II, a new battle began: the Cold War. In the mid-20th century, the United States and the Soviet Union were each trying to prove they were better than the other. Both sides wanted to show the superiority of their technology, military, and, by extension, their political systems. Starting in the late 1950s, the battlefront reached space. The United States and the Soviet Union fought to first achieve milestones in space exploration—starting in 1957 with the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik I, continuing through the U.S.’s landing astronauts on the Moon in 1969, and ending with a handshake in space between American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts in 1975. Witness the fight for extraterrestrial might by reading about the United States and the Soviet Union’s major feats of the Space Race, as recorded in American and Canadian newspapers in real time. The Space Race Over Time July 15-24, 1975 February 20, 1962 May 28, 1964 The Space Race comes October 4, 1957 April 12, 1961 July 20, 1969 John Glenn becomes NASA launches to an end with the Soviet Union Yuri Gagarin Neil Armstrong first American to unmanned Saturn I Apollo-Soyuz Test launches first becomes first becomes the first orbit the Earth rocket as first step Project, the in-orbit artificial satellite human in space human to walk on of the Apollo the Moon docking of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo 16 Mission Report August 1972
    - t"" ======================= MSC- 0723 0 -NATIONAl. AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION °::::°°°°°%%::::::::::::::°°°°%.°°.%° ::::: °o°.°.°°*.*°°°-...o.°.° !!i!i!i!iii!iiiii!!!iii APOLLO 16 MISSION REPORT iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ...... :.:-:.:.:-:.:,:.:.:-:°:° ..... _ _ °°°°°°,°o°°°° °°°°°°°°° °o-.*°-=*°.o.°°*=.°°°. ...... °.°. =°-.°°*....°°°*.°°°°°°* °°o°.°*.*°-°... -.-.° • °•-.= °..°-==°. -**=o°. °o°.-.°...-.o...***°°.. .......... :::::::::::::::::::.°:::: •°,** *..°°°°.. -o°=°.. °.°°..°...°.°°°°.°* *°* • ::::::::::::::::::::::: '!1 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::''""'"'" DISTRIBUTION AND REF ERENCING ::::::::::::::::::::::: This paper is not suitable for general distribution or referencing. It may be referenced -°°°°°°°°°°°°°°.-°-°°.- only in other working correspondence and documents by participating organizations. °°°°-°°°°.°°°°*°°°°°°o° °°°°°°°°*•°°°°°°°°°°°•° °°%°°-.,_-°°°°°°°°°-o_ MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTEF' HOUSTON,TEXAS AUGUST 1972 ======================= :.*:°.°°°.,,***:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :::.....::::::::::::,° ....:::::::: APOLLO SPACECRAFT FLIGHT HISTORy Mission report Mission number S_acecraft Descri ti_ Launch date Launch site PA-I Fostlaunch BP-6 First pad abort Nov. 7, 1963 White Sands memorandum Missile Range, N. Mex. A-001 MSC-A-R-64-1 BP-12 Transonic abort May 13, 1964 White Sands Missile Range, N. Max. AS-10I _C-A-R-6h-2 BP-13 Nomin_l launch and May 28, 196h Cape Kennedy, _ / exit environment Fla. AS-102 MZC-A-R-64-3 BP-15 Nominal launch and Sept. 18, 1964 Cape Kennedy, exit environment Fla. A-O02 _C-A-R-65-1
    [Show full text]
  • Copy 52 of DOC016
    Student Hel£ Needed CEAC Recycling Center Open by T. Rash building holds two large storage Chester Ave. and turn south. The The Caltech Environmental bins, one for newspaper and the first entrance to the Caltech Action Council's recycling center other for glass. The center is parking lot on your left will get is back in existence. Over eight presently concentrating on the you to the center. months ago, CEAC was forced to collection of five materials: alum­ Help Needed shut down its operations in the inum, computer paper and cards, People are also needed to help area behind Campbell Laboratory glass and newspaper. It is open keep the center running. If you due to construction of the new from seven in the morning to are interested in contributing a biology building. In a way this seven in the evening. few hours of your time every was a blessing, as it gave CEAC The new recycling center has month, get in contact with one an opportunity to abandon what needed improvements in cleanli­ of the following persons: Dikran could generously be called· a ness and efficiency but its Antreaysan (Fleming), Randy reclamation dump and start from success is dependent not on Cassada (Kerckhoff), Dwight scratch. design but rather on people. Carey (Ricketts), or Roger The results can be seen in the CEAC strongly urges everyone at Greenburg (Blacker). Working at Chester Avenue parking lot north Caltech to participate in this the center will give you the right of Steele and adjacent to Central recycling effort by bringing news­ to say where a proportionate Engineering Services.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2019
    The StarGazer http://www.raclub.org/ Newsletter of the Rappahannock Astronomy Club No. 3 Vol. 7 November 2018–January 2019 Letter From a New MSRO User By Shannon Morgan as told to Linda Billard Last year, I was pleased to be accepted into the NASA Solar System Ambassadors Program (SSA). As some of you may know, RAC members David Abbou and Lauren Lennon are also in this program. The SSA program works with motivated volunteers across the nation to share the latest science and discoveries of NASA's missions through a variety of events that inspire their communities. Shortly after I was accepted, I happened to see a post on the SSA program’s Facebook page from Lauren regarding the planned training program for the Mark Slade Remote Observatory (MSRO). I was intrigued and got in touch with Lauren right away. I’ve been fascinated with astronomy since I was very young. My mother nurtured this interest by ensuring I had the opportunity to learn about and watch all NASA’s launches. I pursued this interest into adulthood, majoring in astronomy at Appalachian State University (ASU). The university has a very active astronomy program, with multiple observatories housing 14-, 16-, 18-, and 32-inch telescopes. During my time at ASU, I did research on eclipsing binaries and programmed and built an observatory control system. Since college, I have been working in IT but have maintained my own “budget” astrophotography setup. However, the MSRO opportunity was fortuitously timed because back problems have recently limited my ability to haul equipment. MSRO has been the perfect solution for me to continue doing astronomy right from my home office.
    [Show full text]
  • Sections Are Designed to Fold Over the Center Section and Lock in Place for Transport in the LM
    CITY OF KENT LANDMARKS COMMISSION 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA WA 98032 LANDMARK REGISTRATION FORM PART I: PROPERTY INFORMATION 1. Name of Property historic name: LUNAR ROVING VEHICLES other names/site number: Lunar Rovers; LRVs; Moon Buggies 2. Location street address: Lunar Surface parcel no(s): See Physical Description & Figure 1 legal description(s): See Physical Description & Figure 1 3. Classification Ownership of Property: Category of Property: Name of related multiple property listing: private building(s) (Enter “N/A” if property is not part of a public-local district multiple property listing.) public-State site N/A public-Federal structure object 4. Property Owner(s) name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration street: 300 E Street NW city: Washington state: DC zip: 20024 5. Form Prepared By name/title: Sarah J. Martin / SJM Cultural Resource Services (3901 2nd Ave NE #202, Seattle, WA 98105) organization: Contracted consultant on behalf of the Kent Downtown date: July 3, 2019 Partnership (KDP) Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form Page 1 of 74 Property Information (continued) 6. Nomination Checklist Site Map (REQUIRED) Continuation Sheets Photographs (REQUIRED): please label or Other (please indicate): caption photographs and include an index Last Deed of Title: this document can usually be obtained for little or no cost from a title company Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form Page 2 of 74 PART II: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 7. Alterations Check the appropriate box if there have been changes to plan, cladding, windows, interior features or other significant elements. These changes should be described specifically in the narrative section below. Yes No Plan (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • G. EJECTA DISTRIBUTION MODEL, SOUTH RAY CRATER by GEORGE E
    G. EJECTA DISTRIBUTION MODEL, SOUTH RAY CRATER By GEORGE E. ULRICH, HENRY J. MOORE, V. STEPHEN REED, EDWARD W. WOLFE, and KATHLEEN B. LARSON CONTENTS Page Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 160 Definition of South Ray ejecta ………………………………………………………………………………. 160 Mapping techniques ………………………………………..……………………………………………. 161 Measurement of ejects- and ray-covered areas……………………………………………………… 161 Measurement of rim height and crater volume…….………………………………………………… 161 Surface observations ……………………………………………………………………………...……… 163 Distribution mod ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 166 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 173 Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 173 ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1. Premission photomosaic map of Apollo 16 landing site ………………………………………………………………………………… 162 2. Photograph of Apollo 16 landing site and traverse locations in high-sun illumination ………………………………………………… 163 3. Digitally enhanced regenerations of photograph in figure 2 ……………………………………………………………………………. 164 4. Topographic map of South Ray crater and approximation of pre-South Ray surface ………………………………………………….. 165 5. Outline of hummocky ejects around South Ray crater rim and rim heights above outer rim margin ………………………………….. 166 6. Map of concentric rings centered on South Ray crater………………………………………………………………………………….. 167 7. Histogram of area covered by mappable ejects and rays within each annulus shown in figure 6 ………………………………………. 168 8. Histogram of percentage of area covered by ejects and rays in annuli of figure 6……………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]